If Greenpeace wanted to make at least half of America fighting mad, it's chosen a good way to go about it.
A North Dakota jury ordered Greenpeace in March to pay pipeline company Energy Transfer $667 million for the environmental group’s rogue campaign to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline. Now, Greenpeace is trying to get a Dutch court to nullify the jury award, which the trial judge reduced to $345 million in October. Energy Transfer is asking the North Dakota Supreme Court to block the activist group’s attempt to end-run the U.S. legal system. If Greenpeace’s efforts succeed, they would harm much more than the pipeline company. They’d open the door for activists to torpedo other American critical infrastructure projects under European law.
. . .
The suit claims that Energy Transfer’s litigation violated Greenpeace International’s rights under the European Union’s 2024 anti-Slapp law, an anagram for strategic litigation against public participation. The law seeks to protect journalists and nonprofit organizations from meritless lawsuits designed to silence or intimidate them.
Greenpeace’s case isn’t an ordinary appeal, in which a party asks a higher court to review a lower court’s application of the law. Rather, Greenpeace is asking a Dutch court to reassess the merits of the North Dakota case under Europe’s sweeping anti-Slapp directive. The case marks the first attempt to apply the law “extraterritorially” to stymie a lawsuit brought in a country outside the European Union.
If the European directive achieves this reach, it would extend the EU’s regulatory imperialism to the political and social spheres where Europe and America follow starkly different legal norms: In a nutshell, Europe’s speech rules are based on values, while America’s are based on rights.
. . .
Under the EU directive, courts can award damages to parties that have been subjected to “abusive court proceedings,” including those involving “an imbalance of power between the parties” or “excessive” claims.
Greenpeace claims in the Dutch lawsuit that the financial resources of Energy Transfer constitute an “obvious” imbalance of power and that the company’s demands for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages are “clearly excessive.” But the rule of law is based on whether the parties acted within their legal rights, not on whether they happen to run a successful business like Energy Transfer that is seriously affected by a shutdown in operations. If Greenpeace succeeds, expect other activist organizations to incorporate in Europe so they can wiggle out of liability by invoking the EU’s loosely drawn “abusive court proceeding” standard against U.S. companies.
There's more at the link.
I don't know whether the European Union envisaged its anti-SLAPP law being used in this way, to undercut and nullify the duly constituted courts and legal system of a nation that's not a member of the Union. Nevertheless, it was worded loosely enough that Greenpeace sought to take advantage of it.
What happens if the Dutch court rules in Greenpeace's favor? For a start, no US court will issue an order making the Dutch ruling binding under US law. That right does not exist in terms of our constitution. So, let's say the US court goes ahead with its proposed ruling, and orders Greenpeace to pay damages. What if Greenpeace refuses, citing the Dutch court's ruling? If the US government sues them in a US court to recover the money, they'll simply file another Dutch lawsuit in retaliation. If the US does nothing, our laws will quite obviously no longer be adequate protection for our constitutionally enshrined property rights - and that will open the door to a Pandora's box of litigation, countersuit and wealthy lawyers. What if the US tries to sue Greenpeace in a European court? What if the latter rules that the US has no standing to do so, not being a member of the EU?
This is an appallingly complex can of worms. What it might lead to is anybody's guess. However, one thing I'm sure of: from now on, if I come across anything Greenpeace wants, or motivates, or works towards, I'm going to oppose it. I'll even donate to their opponents, whether or not I agree with their perspective. Try to thwart our laws, would they, without so much as a "By your leave" to the American people? To hell with them!
Peter
No comments:
Post a Comment